Salford Council are having a laugh aren't they?

[Parmesan]

fair enough, 

I still don't like it though 

[GrahamH]

fair enough, 

I still don't like it though 

 

Actually, thinking about it since my last post, the extra £1 is probably the most cost effective for the vast majority of people. When one adds up travel costs and time costs (even someone on minimum wage earns £1 in about 10 minutes) there must be very few people who could make a personal application for less than £1 

Graham

[Guy Etchells]

Perhaps so but it is still illegal.

They have a statutory duty to provide anyone with a copy of any entry in a register they hold.
There is a set charge for providing that copy and therefore they do not have a right to add the discretionary charge.

What they are doing is charging twice for the service they have a duty to provide.
That is not only wrong under the legislation it is morally wrong as well.
Cheers
Guy

[GrahamH]

Sorry Guy but it is not illegal.

As I said in May and as Salford Council have confirmed, the statutory duty is to supply a copy where application is made in person.

The Marriage Act 1949 and the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 are silent as regards application other than in person and, therefore, it is impossible for a duty to be imposed on the Council where such applications are received. Responding to such applications can, therefore, be nothing other than a discretionary service and charging for such a service is perfectly legal.

Graham

[Parmesan]

 

Graham says its legal Guy says not.

If its really not I would want to keep pressuring them - can I quote section 93 to them or would that be unwise?

Thanks

[Parmesan]

or is this like the debate on the  1921 thread where its all about interpretation of the law?

[andycand]

or is this like the debate on the  1921 thread where its all about interpretation of the law

It would appear to be, like a lot of legislation not everything is spelt out in detail and in this case it doesn't state at what point a Register Office has met its legal obligation, and whether that obligation includes the delivery of a certificate to anywhere in the world.

In this case Salford have given their view, if you disagree then you could contact the Registrar General for their opinion.

Andy

[Guy Etchells]

Sorry Guy but it is not illegal.

As I said in May and as Salford Council have confirmed, the statutory duty is to supply a copy where application is made in person.

The Marriage Act 1949 and the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 are silent as regards application other than in person and, therefore, it is impossible for a duty to be imposed on the Council where such applications are received. Responding to such applications can, therefore, be nothing other than a discretionary service and charging for such a service is perfectly legal.

Graham

There is nothing in any of the Marriage Acts or the Births & Deaths Acts from 1836 to date the requires applications to be made in person.

If you are so sure that there is please quote from the relevant Act.

Your argument falls apart at the first hurdle as the wording for Superintendent Registrars is the same as the wording for the Registrar General.

For example the Marriage Act, 1949 states the following-

“64.-(I) Every superintendent registrar shall cause indexes of the marriage register books in his office to be made and to be kept with the other records of his office, and the Registrar General shall supply to every superintendent registrar suitable forms for the making of such indexes.
(2) Any person shall be entitled at all reasonable hours to search the said indexes, and to have a certified copy of any entry in the said marriage register books under the hand of the superintendent registrar, on payment to the superintendent registrar of the following fee, that is to say :-


65.-(I) The Registrar General shall cause indexes of all certified copies of entries in marriage register books sent to him under this Part of this Act to be made and kept in the General Register Office.
(2) Any person shall be entitled to search the said indexes between the hours of ten in the morning and four in the afternoon of every day, except Sundays, Christmas Day and Good Friday, and to have a certified copy of any entry in the said certified copies of marriage register books, on payment to the Registrar General or to such other person as may be appointed to act on his behalf of the following fee, that is to say :-“

If the statutory requirement is the application has to be made in person how does one search the index (which has to be kept with the registers) when the GRO no longer makes the indexes available to search.
This shows that either the GRO is acting illegally ( yet the GRO lawyers claim it is not) or the CRO is acting illegally as I claim.

Better still do as I have done on various occasions (such as when I queried the legality of Registrars refusing access to registers in their care) and ask the Registrar General for directions on that particular point.

Cheers
Guy

[GrahamH]

There is nothing in any of the Marriage Acts or the Births & Deaths Acts from 1836 to date the requires applications to be made in person.

You disprove that statement in your own post Guy.

If you are so sure that there is please quote from the relevant Act.

by including the relevant part (thank you)

Your argument falls apart at the first hurdle as the wording for Superintendent Registrars is the same as the wording for the Registrar General.

For example the Marriage Act, 1949 states the following-

“64.-(I) Every superintendent registrar shall cause indexes of the marriage register books in his office to be made and to be kept with the other records of his office, and the Registrar General shall supply to every superintendent registrar suitable forms for the making of such indexes.
(2) Any person shall be entitled at all reasonable hours to search the said indexes, and to have a certified copy of any entry in the said marriage register books under the hand of the superintendent registrar, on payment to the superintendent registrar of the following fee, that is to say :-


65.-(I) The Registrar General shall cause indexes of all certified copies of entries in marriage register books sent to him under this Part of this Act to be made and kept in the General Register Office.
(2) Any person shall be entitled to search the said indexes between the hours of ten in the morning and four in the afternoon of every day, except Sundays, Christmas Day and Good Friday, and to have a certified copy of any entry in the said certified copies of marriage register books, on payment to the Registrar General or to such other person as may be appointed to act on his behalf of the following fee, that is to say :-“

My emphases. How on earth is anyone going to undertake a search unless they do it in person? The provision of the certified copy is tied, by the wording of the Act, to the search (which the person undertakes).

If the statutory requirement is the application has to be made in person how does one search the index (which has to be kept with the registers) when the GRO no longer makes the indexes available to search.
This shows that either the GRO is acting illegally ( yet the GRO lawyers claim it is not) or the CRO is acting illegally as I claim.

If the indexes are not available for personal search that may well be illegal but it is not the point under debate. The Acts are totally silent regarding applications made other than following a search and, therefore, it is impossible for a duty to be imposed on the Council where applications are otherwise received.

Better still do as I have done on various occasions (such as when I queried the legality of Registrars refusing access to registers in their care) and ask the Registrar General for directions on that particular point.

If anyone does want to take this any further then the thing to do is to use Salford Council's complaints procedure to allege that the Council is acting illegally. When the various stages of the complaints procedure find that the complaint is unjustified there is a right of appeal to the Local Government Ombudsman.

Graham